“And I’d be willing to give them a huge discount on my commission should they list their properties with me. You see, not all pro-grow people are evil and greedy.”
Of course they are not. One would not want to think altruistic realtors in HMB would try to make an opportunistic buck selling off the city’s property assets.
Maybe the discount real estate sales office in Montara could be consulted on how to structure a real savings on sales commissions?
Carl May
Always speculative to count a silent majority before it has been heard from. When the citizens of HMB recognize how they were prematurely sold out, how they might be taxed to pay for the sellout, and how the settlement attempts to abandon major categtories of environmental protections for the city and load on more effects of unmanageable overpopulation, many of them may well have feelings very different from the vocal, developer-friendly, environment-disdaining, “property rights” minority.
The above nascent attempts to use Beachwood as a wedge issue, a stalking horse for avoidance of state and national environmental regulations elsewhere in the city, and an inhibition on future enforcement of environmental regulations were predicted. It was so obvious this would be a tactic by overdevelopment interests in that long-misguided city.
Leonard:
A bunch of messages above I wrote:
“Essentially, all uses must have been stripped from a property for a true takings to have taken place. Yet the City of HMB eventually allowed for 19 dwellings on the property in question, conforming to the presence of the ‘wetlands’ as it did so.”
That was based on the same very well known Supreme Court decision that you refer to. Was this argued in HMB’s appearance before Judge Walker? Amazing legal incompetence if it was not brought up. And amazing ignorance on the part of HMB government if they do not know about the current operating definition of a “taking.” If it was argued, the judge’s ruling was obviously contrary to a prior Supreme Court decision, which should have made an appeal on this matter alone a slam dunk. But I’m not an attorney and don’t understand any legal manuevering that may have nullified this matter.
The whole business of possible takings and coastal wetlands under the Coastal Act has been litigated ad nauseum in several prominent cases in Southern California. It has not escaped notice that HMB government its real estate greedseeds ("greedseed" = a hayseed more interested in the final crop than agricultural products) is behaving very much like SoCal coastal towns and counties dominated by right-wingers and real estate profiteers.
Which gets to another matter, which is that the Beachwood decision by Walker may be used to peck away at the current definition of a “taking.” This is constantly a pursuit of “property rights” law firms. So the City Council of HMB and its law firms might be responsible for a precedent that will have ramifications even beyond California. And they wonder why people outside HMB are slamming the sleazy settlement?
Carl May
AB1991 was a huge mistake. Suddenly the settlement became the problem of all Californians, as the city got Mullin to carry foul water for it in the state legislature. People who previously did not give a damn about how HMB handled its problem suddenly did because their ox was now being gored.
One can only guess at the reasons something so stupid is being tried. Ignorance of the many elsewhere in California who would be drawn in? Inherent disdain for coastal regulations in general? Arrogance, thinking they could lay off any failure of such legislation to go through on “obstructionists” who would forget history and abandon principles? Hope that the stupidity would succeed in spite of all, as other stupidities sometimes do in politicized California. The possibilities go on...but not on to one good reason why this bill should not be aborted for the good of all.
Carl May
Francis,
Don’t be disuaded by the self-interested spinners who refuse to take off the feedbag and admit how HMB has blundered in a manner that will have ramifications up and down the state. Do you live in Mendocino County? Doesn’t matter, but if you do, there are those of us who realize some of what your supervisors inland in Ukiah have done to try to weaken the Coastal Act over the years. There is reason for concern no matter where private attacks on the public interest are launched.
Unfortunately, the entire California coastline is a commons, and that subjects it to the sort of potential tragedies Garrett Hardin wrote about in his famous editorial.
You wrote: “Regarding private property rights: Owners that have been denied any access or any use of their land by the commission must be compensated for their land. However, such “takings” are rarely the case.”
And are not the case here, though the City of Half Moon Bay decided not to press the issue. Essentially, all uses must have been stripped from a property for a true takings to have taken place. Yet the City of HMB eventually allowed for 19 dwellings on the property in question, conforming to the presence of the “wetlands” as it did so. That was less than the poor little multi-millionaire developer wanted out of his relatively small, speculative, initial investment; and he figured the chances for a greater profit through lawyering up were more attractive. He was right about that, luckily getting a far-right judge on “property rights.”
It’s all about the money, and the City of HMB, now with a city council that itches to appease developers (some of this has to do with “Old Guard” agricultural landowners wanting to be free to sell off for the “final crop") had no stomach for sticking up for government’s regulatory powers. (Perhaps they were a bit afraid they might actually succeed on appeal, but I have no way of knowing that.) They took the first deal their attorneys could drum up to create a payoff for the developer. They got out of the effort a well-pursued appeal would have required; and they managed to throw in another property they want developed. They probably also figured the $18 million that the city might have to pay could be absorbed without bankrupting the city and could be offset partially by selling off that portion the land on which development could be allowed. Any simpleton could scheme that out. And it becomes more plausible if your have lived around here for a few decades and see how the factions (predictably) work.
Don’t imagine for a moment that the four council people in HMB cared a whit about the possible effects of their oddball legislative manuever involving Assemblyman Mullin on the rest of the state’s heavily pressured coastline. As you can see by the messages, people going for the money locally care only about the here and now.
Hang in there with your to-the-point, logical, and objective messages. Daylight drives our local coastal vampires crazy.
Carl May
Yup. AB 1991 would go into the developer’s primer on how to get around Coastal Act regulations--where it would join past such circumventions. People like Wan on the Coastal Commission clearly understand this. One is left to wonder if this law firm has any experience at all with California coastal controversies or if they just used a boilerplate snow job in the message trying to justify the naive required legislation.
Love the justification for Glencree: “Regarding the inclusion of the 12-acre Glencree parcel that is adjacent to Beachwood, the developer required the inclusion of that parcel in the settlement agreement.” Looks more and more like the mandate to the attorneys was: “get a fast settlement, any settlement.” People outside HMB should remember this kind of repeated incompetent screwup when the calls to annex to the city come up.
Carl May
Carl May
Pacifica opening? Remember, some of us shop up there, and last year’s location at Rockaway was convenient.
Common sense would suggest a settlement that did not demand exemptions from a number of applicable laws. Do the city council members of Half Moon Bay imagine they are somehow separate from the rest of the state? As Wan said, it is a terrible precedent. Previous legal erosion of this sort--a lessening of Coastal Act regulations on one property being used to justify the same kind of act-busting activities on other properties--is one of the reasons the Coastal Act has become so feeble.
Comments displaying ignorance of the well-established environmental science involved do nothing to demean the facts and principles of the situation. A property does not have to be in pristine natural condition to have coastal characteristics worthy of protection. If development had not already destroyed roughly 95 percent of California’s coastal wetlands, there might be more of a basis for compromise. But there isn’t. If we, as a society, invested more in understanding the various kinds of wetlands and how to restore them after assaults on their integrity, there might be possibilities for mitigation off-site. But we haven’t.
Politics and the power of money might yet prevail to let the Beachwood settlement happen, but if it needs to get by on the facts on the ground, it’s dead. Only time will tell how Half Moon Bay’s blunder of almost a quarter of a century ago will play out.
“Which of the folks who have lived here since before 1984 think that there were no wetlands on the Beachwood property until after the city constructed a drainage project for the Terrace development?”
Dennis,
This is exactly what has some of us giggling in the background--gotta keep it in the background because the potential consequences are real and serious for more recently arrived people who had no part in creating the problem.
Bottom line: The property was DRAINED for development in those heady days of the early 80’s, a time when the City of Half Moon Bay was still coming to grips with the need to give at least an appearance of complying with the requirements of the Coastal Act. It wasn’t dust they were draining. But they botched the job and some of the water hanged around during ensuing wet periods and formed new wetlands.
(And, yes, other wetlands in Half Moon Bay and the midcoast were also drained and/or filled for residential development in that era. A particularly irritating one for me was a little marsh off of Roosevelt, near where I had an office at the time.)
Carl May
“I’m a long-time conservative Republican and I’m deeply dismayed by the contempt that the California Republican Party holds for environmental laws and the Coastal Commission in particular. They fail to recognize that others like me can find fiscally and socially conservatives Democrats to support, but nary an environmentally conservative Republican.”
Pete McCloskey said something similar recently when he helped a Democratic candidate for the House and then announced he was going to register as a Democrat after being a life-long Republican. Wish he hadn’t done that. His kind of integrity makes for a great independent. Or a potential founder of the Realist Party.
Carl May
“Even though the Godmother. Dolores Mullins, died in the mid-nineties her sphere of influence is still with us. Why?
“Assemblyman Gene Mullin, sponsor of AB 1991, is her godson.”
....
John Lynch
And, John, do you recall who was selected by her gang to replace her on the HMB City Council?
Six degrees? We don’t need no stinking six degrees to make connections.
Carl May
With Migden’s personal problems already working against her and Yee stumbling on this environmental sell-out, it could get more interesting if Nation or a conservationist Republican in the mold of Mel Lane can spin it into a campaign issue.
“Yee and Mullin are the real bad guys here. The local polticos who agreed to this ripoff settlement are just clueless. Yee and Mullin know very well what they are doing.”
Got to disagree, Kevin. “Saving the city” and sliding all this in on greased skids is a big win for the pro-development HMB City Council. And you know better than I the chilling effect this will have on trying to uphold growth limitations, the HMB LCP, and the Coastal Act on other properties in the city. It’s a classic Old Guard win. And let’s not forget this is what the voters of HMB said they wanted when they put in this City Council.
Whatever makes you think a “D” after someone’s name means they are good for the built or unbuilt environment?
Yeah, right, so that is one reasson why I posted Mauz’s appeal letter. It is obviously to the point and specific as to the violations alleged.
So who would you have as this great arbiter of appeals that would conform to the wishes of developers?
By the way, Greg, my academic training is as a biologist. Degree in that from a reputable university. Post-degree field research. Worked for one of the top few recognized population biologists dealing with human populations. Almost four decades of working on college-level educational materials in the area, continuing to present. Most recently provided photographic illustrations for a new college ecology text from one of the top few college science publishers in the U.S. Not at all unusual among the people I know concerned with environmental issues. You might be surprised at the credentials of the people you consider to be unworthy commentators.
Carl May
Greg’s lamented well project, PLN2005-00376:
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/tm_bin/tmw_cmd.pl?tmw_cmd=StatusViewCase&shl_caseno=PLN2005-00376
Mauz’s letter of appeal:
From: “Nature Watch” <nature_watch@hotmail.com>
To:
CC: ,
Subject: My Letter re: PLN 2005-00376 (Zoning Hrg. Officer’s Hrg.)/Barbara Mauz
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:07:00 +0000
June 7, 2007 - Via E-Mail -
Zoning Hearing Officer
San Mateo County Planning & Building
County Government Center
455 County Center - 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: PLN 2005-00376 (Ward, Sladek and Nerhan)
APN: 048-310-230
Dear Zoning Hearing Officer,
Please make this letter a part of the Official County Public Record regarding PLN 2005-00376.
The proposed construction of a Domestic Water Well in PAD Zoned Land is an incompatible use; further, this project as described in the Staff Report states that the Domestic Well is to assess water quality and quantity for the POTENTIAL FUTURE APPLICATION(S) of single-family residential construction indicating that the well is the first step to a larger project that equates to piecemeal development which is illegal, as 15378 of the CEQA guidelines is the “whole of an action” where a project cannot legally be segmented into smaller pieces and then studied independently of one another. The related larger project involved in this application does not qualify for the categorical exemption 15304 due to exceptions stated in 15300.2c (significant effect) and 15300.2d (scenic highways).
With regards to the actual larger project, please be reminded that County voters in 1986 mandated and enacted Measure A, which included the key provision of the LCP which would require a County-wide vote to:
(a) extend urban services outside the urban boundary,
(b) the conversion of prime soils to another use,
(c) allow a change in intensity of use of the land, or
(d) rezone the lands for any of the above
The County’s recommendation of approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Planned Agricultural District Permit for PLN 2005-00376 is inconsistent with the following:
LUP Policy 1.8 states:
Allow new development (as defined in Section 30106 of the California Coastal Act of 1976) in rural areas only if it is demonstrated that it will not:
(1) have significant adverse impacts, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources and (2) diminish the ability to keep all prime agricultural land and other land suitable for agriculture (as defined in the Agriculture Component) in agricultural production. [Emphasis added.]
LUP Policy 5.10:
a. Prohibits the conversion of lands suitable for agriculture within a parcel to conditionally permitted uses unless all of the following can be demonstrated:
(1) All agriculturally unsuitable lands on the parcel have been developed or determined to be undevelopable; (2) Continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not feasible as defined by Section 30108 of the Coastal Act; (3) Clearly defined buffer areas are developed between agricultural and non-agricultural uses; (4) The productivity of any ADJACENT agricultural lands is not diminished; (5) Public Service and facility expansions and permitted uses do not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. [Emphasis added.]
Zoning Regulation Section 6350 - Purpose of the Planned Agricultural District (PAD)
The purpose of the Planned Agricultural District is to: (1) preserve and foster existing and potential agricultural operations in San Mateo County in order to keep the maximum amount of prime agricultural land and all other lands suitable for agriculture in agricultural production, and (2) minimize conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses by employing all of the following techniques:
(a) establishing STABLE BOUNDARIES SEPARATING Urban and Rural Areas and, when necessary, clearly defined buffer areas.
(b) limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to lands where the viability of existing agricultural use has already been severely limited by conflicts with urban uses, and where the conversion of such land would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a STABLE LIMIT TO URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
(c) developing available lands not suitable for agriculture before converting agricultural lands,
(d) assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality and,
(e) assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural land - except those stated in (b) and all adjacent development does not diminish the productivity of prime agricultural lands and other land suitable for agriculture. [Emphasis added.]
The CEQA exception of 15300.2d would also apply here as the actual larger project (potential future application(s) of single-family residential construction) could negatively impact the visual character of the scenic resources ---- and could also violate LCP Policy 8.5 which requires that new development be located where it is least visible from State and County Scenic Roads, least likely to significantly impact views from public viewpoints, and best preserves the visual and open space qualities of the area.
In conclusion, the creation of a domestic well in Planned Agricultural District land that is intended to support agricultural uses is incompatible; overall, the creation of domestic wells is a great concern because every one that is allowed is a depletion of this Coastside’s very limited water supply.
Very truly yours,
Barbara K. Mauz
P.O. Box 1284
El Granada, CA 94018
cc: California Coastal Commission
June,
My argument is not against the Internet. But there is an audience beyond the Internet for television, a large audience that uses both the Internet and television, and there are kinds of material that do better on TV than through the Internet or in print.
So it’s not an either-or thing in my opinion. It may not appeal to you as an activity, but I’d love to see some of your coastside stories in a visual form as an ongoing series of short, well-produced documentaries. Whether or not you like his style, do you agree Ken Burns’s documentaries, the handling of still photographs and visual detail, for example, would not come off as well in low-resolution Internet video?
Carl May
“This is a warning shot from the governor’s office to all of his appointees: Do what I say, no matter how stupid it is,” said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Los Angeles. “And I know of no project more destructive to the California coast than this toll road project.”
Mr. Reynolds must be speaking of the moment. Some would have the California Coastal Trail be, in essence, a one-lane paved road for almost its entire 1100+-mile length. This includes some influential individuals at the state’s Coastal Conservancy and in the major CCT advocacy group, Coastwalk. Even if the CCT is such a road for half its length, its cumulative destructive impact will equal, at the least, a four-lane expressway for more than 140 miles along the coastline.
Bad as the unnecessary tollway through San Onofre State Beach is, the paved CCT would be, cumulatively, much worse. No CCT at all would be at least as good for our state’s coastline, given that part of the coastline would not have to be destroyed in order to access it. (Similarity to the famous Viet Nam era quote intended, “We had to destroy it in order to save it.”
For a local perspective on this, consider Half Moon Bay’s wide, paved portion of the CCT and the segment of the CCT proposed by the county for Mirada Surf West.
What is going on? There is a lot of money for certain industries and governmental bureaucracies in creating new paved roads. Doing so in the name of coastal access required by the Coastal Act provides excellent cover for the damage that will occur and “environmental credentials” to boot.
One wonders what the atmosphere at the dinner table was like when the Annihilator’s wife found out a member of her family had been shown the door.
Carl May
“As for Lansing’s comment, and just for the sake of conversation, who put Barbara up to filing the appeal, and who was the Staffer that filed the pre-signed appeal, which I have a copy of. I have the answer to both of those questions, need I go further???”
Greg gets the horse-laugh of the week! As if anyone ever needed to put Barbara Mauz up to anything.
The “property rights” crowd likes to operate as if no one knows of the repeated defeats of their approaches to objecting to environmental regulations that are inconvenient for their money-making schemes. Like we don’t know that wealthy landowners and developers in the coastal counties of Southern California were among the largest contributors to the campaign against Prop. 20 before it passed. Or that their paid-for state legislators from Orange and San Diego counties have worked to soften and reverse environmental regulations in the coastal zone since 20’s passage.
Ducheny is in the long line of legislators (plus officials appointed to the Coastal Commission) serving money interests. (In the mid-1980’s, it was the capricious flip-flop of a Coastal Commissioner from Chula Vista that produced Commission approval of the Martini Creek version of the Devil’s Slide bypass and eventually forced those who wished to protect their natural heritage, resources, and communities into court for many years. Talk about wasting money never seems to get around to the huge amount of time and money we are forced to waste on that kind of issue.)
We are supposed to be so naive as to think someone gets something out of empty appeals. The majority of projects never appealed gives lie to that. We are supposed to think appeals, no matter who files them, are usually meritless and filed only to aggravate the destructionists. Yet all appeals are reviewed for having a substantive issue before they proceed for consideration. We are not supposed to know that the Coastal Commission lacks the staffing (thanks to budget restrictions sought by the developer crowd’s paid politicians and lobbyists in every budget go-around) to handle many appeals and,therefore, actually has a disincentive to pursue appeals.
We are supposed to be ignorant of the fact that the
Coastal Commission frequently compromises with the money-grubbers on both approvals and appeals, using tradeoffs between its always-present developer-favoring members and those more law-abiding and objective. (It’s not unlike San Mateo County, where relatively few property owners, developers, and builders are given equal status to everyone else.) We are not supposed to have the small amount of sophistication needed to know that seemingly trivial whines about appeals regarding
little bits of pavement or single wells or a slightly noncompliant house someone wants to build avoid the overarching concern about cumulative impacts. And when someone points out these empirical phenomena, they try to pass them off as conjecture and off-the-wall opinion.
This last point gets to the reason for digging out the truth for anyone who cares to consider it. No, Mr. Muteff, no one long involved in these issues is going to change their viewpoint. But the greatest number of people is almost
always to be found among those with a fresh interest and getting up to speed. They should not be abandoned to those with a singular financial motivation, and damn the effects on the lives of most of us.
Carl May
Darin,
I appreciate that you have a fire in your belly for this sort of thing.
The punctuated history of dissatisfaction by some with various aspects of MCTV goes back many years before your arrival on the coastside. This is not to say your review of recent events is not illuminating and well worth reading. But from outside programming to coverage of local government to access to MCTV by content producers, some citizens have long had issues.
And we have had issues with the provision of cable in general. The county was grossly out of touch with actual life on the coastside, as usual, when it provided the monopoly. At contract times, a deaf ear was turned to those who advocated better service by our would-be governmental masters in Redwood City.
You are wrong if you accept Gordon’s contention that the MCC fell out of touch with coastsiders. That contention is coming from someone who has never demonstrated that he is in touch with the coastside’s general population. If there is an analogy, it is that the county is just as out of touch as MCTV. If the MCC has been diminished in recent years, it has been because the county has, for years and years, marginalized its advice, ignored its suggestions, and wasted the time of numerous past MCC members. These popularly elected MCC members spent many months, if not years, of their life holding regular and often well-attended MCC meetings, an even greater number of regular committee meetings than MCC meetings, and making innumerable trips to Redwood City to attend Board of Supervisors and other meetings on our behalf. Some of these MCC members polled their constituents, staying infinitely closer to our midcoast population than any supervisor has ever demonstrated in the same timespan. It was only after the county discouraged some of the most active MCC members and some people got elected to the council on the basis of being much more conciliatory and compromising with the arrogant county overlords that the meetings and participation went to hell. For example, with a switch in leadership, the Parks and Rec Committee went from monthly meetings and ongoing multi-year projects to zero activity. Your friend Neil comes off as a neophyte as he seems to know nothing of the long history of planning a route for and otherwise considering the nature of the California Coastal Trail in our area, for another example.
I give you big props for unsettling the comfort of MCTV with regard to local meeting coverage. As you and others point out, the status quo is deadening. Just as deadening is the probability that our government, also a dug-in entity with little responsibility to the comparatively small and politically impotent population of the coastside, will do anything about it. Anyone who loosens that corset helps all of us.
Carl May
The problem with the big Internet “sharing” sites is that they are egalitarian. That makes for impossible “programming” for the general public because one must slog endlessly through amateurish junk to discover a few good pieces. Some like the prospecting. Most of us are quickly turned off. So, other than a few unusual ones that catch on and are widely publicized, most video pieces posted on YouTube are too poorly done to be of interest or are intended for a circle of friends. The same can be said of the big photography sites like Flickr.
The kind of coastside local programming I’d like to see on TV would have to be well-produced to get an audience. This means good scripts, good camera work and sound, good editing, and all the rest. Production values/quality much better than the streaming video one sees on the Internet. Something that would do right by the subject matter rather than irritate most people viewing it. Or, thanks to electronic gadgets, is poor visual and aural quality so much a part of life for anyone under 40 that none care?
Page 2 of 15 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Anneliese Agren: Understood Ken. It’s important to give definition to the difference of genuine debate here, versus… Posted 05/17 at 5:35am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ken Johnson: Anneliese, Maybe you are right - I always thought of him as a turnip. But… Posted 05/17 at 1:51am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Carl.. I’m just reading more pretentious discourse from someone that may not be living in… Posted 05/16 at 10:36pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: Ray, Let’s pretend you are as confused about the basics of ecological matters as your… Posted 05/16 at 10:16pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Anneliese Agren: Ray Olson is a troll. Posted 05/16 at 8:40pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Ray Olson: Oh Carl, it only took you a day for to write your VERY verbose, pompous,… Posted 05/16 at 8:33pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Carl May: It doesn’t hold true in all cases, but damage to natural features and values in… Posted 05/16 at 7:11pm in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Carl May: Ray, You are flailing. Of course I have seen these definitions. I have even written… Posted 05/16 at 6:31pm in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
Jim Sullivan: Dave Holland moving on, I hope not.... for awhile anyway. I absolutely support Measure O.… Posted 05/16 at 8:57am in Opinion: Money is need for for Midcoast parks -- could Parks For The Future help?
Leonard Woren: Years ago the CCC approved the project, allowing 19 houses to be built on the… Posted 05/16 at 5:38am in Local Government Committee passes AB1991 -- next stop: Appropriations Committee
